The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1887-08-25
TIE OPINION.
The Chancellor Dismisses
the Martin College Bill.
The Tennessee Annual Confer
ence Has No Right to the
Control of the College.
The State of Tennessee, &c relattone, &c,
Martin Female College, ct ais.

VS..
Martin Female College, ct ais.
This ia bill filed in the chance
nv court of Giles county in the
name of the state of Tennessee by
John L. Jones, attorney general,
upon the relation of T. j. Duncan
and others against Martin Female
College, an institution of learning
incorporated under the laws of the
state, Ida f. Hood and Susan L
Heron as principals or lessees of
said college, against Jno. S. Wilkes
as president and others named as
the board of trust of said college,
and against others named as the
official board of Pulaski station, M.
E. G. S.
The bill is fled under the code
of Tennessee, section ALAG ct seq,
by the attorney general upon the
Information of the REALTORS, T. j.
Duncan and others, asking a con-
struction Of the Sth and 18th sec
ions of the will of Thos. Martin
relating to and providing for said
school, claiming that the trusts
therein were executed for the bene-
fit of female school to be manag-
ed by the officers of the nj. E
Church established at Pulaski, IN
der the fostering care and control
of the M. E. Church, South, through
their annual and quarterly confer
ences, seeking to have the charter
set aside so far as the same is IN
conflict with the will and purposeo
of the testator, and especially the
9th clause of the said charter, and
| to vacate and annul the lease OF
sa d school to defendants, Misses
Hood and Heron, as surrender OF
the trust under the will to said les
sees, as a misapplicatlon of tbs
trust fund provided by the will, and
an abnse of the trusts committed tc
the officers of the church by sale
will. To the bill a demurrer and
an answer have been fled and The
Judgment of the court is invoked
i6inon the matter raised by the de-
murrer.
In deciding the questions ralset
by the demurrer the answer can
not be looked to or considered by
the court, but only the bill and ex
hibits thereto. And all the mate
rial allegations Of the bill are adj
mitted, except in so far as they II az
be contradicted by the exhibits flee
with the bill. But while all the al
legations of fact contained in th'
bill are admitted to be true upol
the trial of the demurrer, the lega
conclusions or deductions of law de
rived from the facts stated are no
admitted by the demurrer but en-
tirely within the province of th'
court. With these general obser
vations l proceed to consider th
matters of defense raised by th
demurrer.
The first ground of demurrer is
accomplishments by their bill attemp
to set up trust in the Tennessee
annual conference and in the quar-.
terly conference of the Methods
church at Pulaski; but it does no
appear that they are authorized t.
do so by either conference, no
have they made the Tennessee an
nual conference party" ! do no
think this ground of demurrer ca
be sustained. The object Of tn
Legislature in the enactment Of tn
law found in the code NJ. & V
was to furnish an easy and efficien
means OF correcting abuses in til
management of public trusts an
charities by filing bill in the nam
of the state and with the assent 0
: concurrence of the attorney genera
of the district upon the information
Of any one who is sufficiently inter.
, ested in the matter involved as t
execute the bond for cost. And
do not think it necessary that b
sh ould be clothed with authorit
? from the Tennessee annual confer
ence or quarterly conference of tn
Methodist Church, South, in orde
to maintain suit of this character
See IL Lea 662; Perry on TTffai sett
744 and notes; State vs.. Elliston,
, BaX. So.
? The same disposition may b
: made of the Sth ground of demur.
) rer which is in like manner over
= ruled, and which is as follows
accomplishments do not show tina
they have any interest whatever i
t the matters in controversy eithe
t personally or as representing an
/ other person or class except tn
S relatoT, T, J. Duncan, who does no
2 sue in his official character"
g will add that the determination G
I one suit of this character adversel
? to the state which is the party CON
E plainant in this cause will in 10
/ opinion be res djadicasa and bar til
= right Of recovery in any similar sui
involving the same subject matter
instituted upon the information o
some other parties. and henc
there is little probability, as argue
: by defendants solicitors, that tbei
! clients will be annoyed by multi
!, plicity of suits, aud especially whe
t the statute requires the suit to b
} instituted by the attorney genera
> whose name and approval are pre-
, requisite TO the bringing of the sui
The second ground of demurre
= is: accomplishments by their bill see
5 to reform and revise o charter nc
i for any alleged illegality, but in OF
der t. make it conform to certai
e construction OF the will of Tho,
$ Martin" This may perhaps be
o good ground of demurrer to the bi
J. so far as it goes, but | do not un
: derstand that the sole object of tn
4 bill is to reform or revise the char
ter, but it seeks relief, as I under
, stand it, against alleged perversion
!. OF the trust under the Will and cha
ter. And as the demurrer in thi
), instance does not contain within i
: self a full and complete defense /
the relief sought in the bill, do nc
deem il material that | should de
It eide the question presented therein
r Passing over for the present th
Sd, 4th and 9Th assignments {
II